Anatomical monsters: scientifi fetichism and “mistakes of life” in the 19th century
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this article it intend to show a continuity of the (dis)evaluative treatment of "monstrous" subjects in the nineteenth century, that is, from the freak-show to the anatomical study. The exhibition and fetishism of the former remain in the latter, in view of the fact that the subjects studied are still considered "monsters", who are specifially defied as objects of science. For the development of the study, the cases of Sarah Baartman (1789-1815) and Joseph Merrick (1862-1890) will be presented and analyzed. Then, the distinction made by Canguilhem (1962) between "monstrous" and "monstrosity" will be considered, with the purpose of understanding how anatomical science redefies its monsters trying to hide this valuational movement.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Durbach, N. (2007). Monstrosity, Masculinity and Medicine: Re-Examining ‘the Elephant Man’. Cultural and Social History, 4(2), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.2752/147800307X199047
Qureshi, S. (2004). Displaying Sara Baartman, the ‘Hottentot Venus’. History of Science, 42(2), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530404200204
Treves, F. (1923). The Elephant Man and Other Reminiscences. Casell and Company.
Torrano, A. (2014). La monstruosidad en G. Canguilhem y M. Foucault. Una aproximación al monstruo biopolítico. Ágora: papeles de Filosofía, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.15304/ag.34.1.1594